From whdaffer@wabcmail.com Sun Feb 11 19:06:01 EST 2007
Article: 1175411 of alt.revisionism
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1175411
Path: sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-03!sn-xt-sjc-11!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-xt-sjc-12!supernews.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:48:44 -0600
Sender: whd@William-Daffers-Computer-2.local
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: I'm curious.
References: <1170881634.679904.124720@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>  <1170946044.336357.46100@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>  <1170949553.629913.184390@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <1170953557.755452.112970@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1170957001.886621.235910@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>  <1170973866.804541.294420@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1171006753.668474.182250@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <1171012674.377313.262590@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1171015136.148225.36220@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>  <1171185508.550271.157560@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
From: William Daffer 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: Amateur denier debunker
Date: 11 Feb 2007 11:48:44 -0800
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: 
Lines: 568
X-Trace: sv3-fn4vgKeF8uMcHyO6U8oxOObPvwN0rRXQql4lUOhuzHnv231d7bEUtsO8uuBvM2cGE7qfRcVTdvLMv0K!TRt3XXbeLJoHlnV5Zxqr+EzJVvm9iFw0+BkYKnnPHLzpLFt//Ei+Nbl1232bdQwwNuplp3rJ
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32

"ataturkey"  writes:

> On Feb 10, 6:23 pm, William Daffer  wrote:
> > "ataturkey"  writes:
> >
> [snip]
> 
> > > Calling everybody liar who do not agree with your side reminds one
> > > that most people judge others after themselves.
> >
> >   However, calling them a liar because their disagreement depends upon
> >   lies is no error.
> 
> Do you think that your insults are more convincing than Cramer's well
> documented posts? 

  ROTFLMAO!

  If you think that Cramer is documenting anything, well or otherwise,
  you've just demonstrated that you really are ignorant of what's
  being discussed. 

  First off, he doens't do any of his own work, everything he posts
  that isn't larded through with obscenity, misogony or anti-semitica
  is pulled wholesale off some deniers website. And he accepts that
  stuff sight-unseen. So claiming that he's presenting 'well
  documentated' posts only demonstrates what an easily decieved rube
  *YOU ARE*!

  Secondly, his method of 'investigation' into the Holocaust is merely
  to deny anything that doesn't accord with his conclusions. No
  argument, no reason, in fact it's quite clear that Cramer, along
  with the Knolls, is the purest deniers here: they are almost
  completely ignorant of the history, they just make stuff up and lie
  about everything. They're obscene, racist, misogonistic twits and
  you do yourself grave disservice by allying with them.


> I think that you are just trying to cover up your
> own lies and distortions with your name calling. 

  While I think you're demonstrating your stupidity by describing
  Cramers posts as 'well documentated.' Clearly you can't have
  actually done any research because it's childs play to debunk these
  cretins.


> Let me give some advice; 

  LOL! Thanks, but no thanks. You're in no position to be offering
  advice to anyone on the subject.

  Let's look at one of Cramers 'well documented' posts, shall we?

  Consider 

  http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/dc25718f1563323a?

  Which is merely a cut-n-paste of 

  http://www.ety.com/tell/books/jgjewstats/jgstattoc.htm

  without any attribution (frequently this is called 'plagiarism')

  If you look at the whole post, you'll see that there's no comment by
  Cramer, no analysis, no *thinking*. He just accepts whatever is said
  in this post and regurgitates it as the gospel truth.

  Let's consider one paragraph in this screed.

  

    The leading pre-war expert on Jewish population statistics, Arthur
    Ruppin, stated that there were 16,7 million Jews in the world in
    1939 (13). For the immediate postwar years, the World Almanac gave
    the following figures: 15,19 million in 1945 and 15,7 million in
    the following four years, from 1946 to 1949. But it its 1949
    issue, the World Almanac quoted the figures furnished by the
    American Jewish committee according to which there had been 16,6
    million Jews in 1939 and only 11,2 million in 1947 (14). On the
    other hand, in an article published in the Jewish-owned New York
    Times in early 1948, Hanson Baldwin, a military expert and
    specialist on Palestine, stated that there were between 15 and 18
    million Jews worldwide (15). As you see, the Jewish world
    population statistics enable you as easily to prove that the
    Holocaust took place as they allows you to prove that it didn't;
    it just depends upon which statistics you prefer to believe. It's
    not in these statistics that we are going to find the answer to
    our question how many Jews really perished as a result of German
    policy.

    ... 

    13) John Sack, An Eye for an Eye, New York 1993. 

    14) World Almanac 1949, p. 204.


  

  The first thing to know about this passage is that it leaves out
  several crucial pieces of information and embroiders others
     
  1. Hanson Baldwin may have been a military expert, but he wasn't a
     population expert. (the embroidery) 2. In the article in question
     Baldwin is discussing the military situation in Palestine, hardly
     surprising since that was his job. In that article he gives many
     figures. Some are outright numbers (e.g. 1,250,000, suggesting
     that he actually knew the number rather precisely) and some are
     'figurative' (e.g. 16 million, suggesting that he didn't) Try to
     guess into which category the population statistic falls. (more
     embellishment on the part of Jurgen Graf which Cramer, and now
     you, simply accept unthinkingly) 

     Several days later, the N.Y.Times published a codicil to this
     article, it stated

        'Last Sunday's article incorrectly estimated the Jewish
        population of the world at 15 to 18 million. No census has
        been conducted since the war, and estimates are only
        approximate, but most authorities agree that Hitler's
        wholesale massacres of Jews during the war reduced the Jewish
        population to perhaps 12 million today."

  This little nugget is omitted entirely from Graf's article and,
  since Cramer accepts Graf unthinkingly and you think Cramer's crap
  is so 'well documented' you simply don't know about it, now do you,
  braniac?

  _Strike one_


  But there's more.

  Later, Baldwin replied by letter to an inquiry from Morris Kominsky,
  which letter is published in the book "The Hoaxers." It reads in
  part

    'The world Jewish population figures printed in this story came
    from the 1948 edition of the World Almanac. Later we checked it
    with the American Jewish Committee and other sources and said in
    the correction, as I noted to you in my previous letter, that the
    authorities agree that Hitler's wholesale massacre of Jews during
    the war reduced the Jewish population to perhaps 12 million today
    (2/26/48).'

  Here's the crucial point. Graf is going to use numbers from the AJC
  later in his screed. By doing so he's accepted them as authoritative
  enough to become part of the conversation. In the passage above,
  Baldwin is admitting that he used numbers from the World Almanac and
  then accepted nubmers from the AJC, both sources the Graf
  accepts. Yet the reason for Graf to include Baldwin in his screed
  was to attempt to discredit the World Almanac and AJC!

  Since neither you nor Cramer see fit to actually do the legwork to
  check the passage in question, you don't know that the first quoted
  'authority' in Graf's passage above doesn't hold the opinion
  attributed to him by Graf.

  That makes Graf a liar for claiming Baldwin as a source and Cramer
  a gullible fool for believing him. It makes Graf more a liar for not
  telling you (the reader) that Baldwin isn't the authority Graf has
  made him out to be and therefore Baldwin can't be used to contradict
  the information in the World Almanac since 1) that's were he got it
  himself and 2) he's now accepted the AJC's estimate.

  Since all of Cramer's 'well documented' articals are all in the same
  category, namely cut-n-paste jobs from deniers websites, we can take
  this example as the norm. Which means that your rising to Cramer's
  defense and bemoaning how he's being mistreated for posting his
  'well documented posts' rather handily demosntrates you a gullible
  twit for thinking these posts 'well documented' when, in fact,
  they're rather easily debunked and rather nicely demolishes any
  claim you might have made to objectivity.

  So here's my advice to you. The fact that something posted by Cramer
  has some *verisimilitude*, is fairly well-spoken and has a wealth of
  footnotes does not make it 'well documented' or *true*.

  _Strike two_

  But the sad, sad demosntration of your and Cramer's gullibility
  doesn't end here, there's more. Much more.

  The second 'source' given in Graf's passage is the World Almanac
  itself. I've been trying *for years* to see whether any one of you
  yahoos (and here I'm using that word in its original sense) would
  actually go to a library and *look at the World Almanac* instead of
  just stupidly and gullibly taking Graf's (or whichever
  denier-du-jour writing the same debunked trash) word for it, but
  none of you ever do. I can only conclude that you all sense that
  something is wrong with the population statistics argument that
  you've been harping on but you really don't want to know, so you're
  protecting yourself from the guilty knowledge.

  Moreover, your reluctance to do any work certainly strengthens the
  conclusion that you are, to the man, woman or child of you, lazy
  buffonish cusses who wouldn't know how to do historical research if
  you were beaned with an instruction manual.

  In anycase, I have done this teensy bit of research and can you
  guess what I found?

  Well, the Graf is lying, again. And Cramer, by posting this crap, is
  a gullible fool and you, for rising to his defense, is another in
  long line of credulous twits.

  Just to remind you, here's the passage in question again.

  

    ... the World Almanac gave the following figures: 15,19 million in
    1945 and 15,7 million in the following four years, from 1946 to
    1949. But it its 1949 issue, the World Almanac quoted the figures
    furnished by the American Jewish committee according to which
    there had been 16,6 million Jews in 1939 and only 11,2 million in
    1947 (14)

    14) World Almanac 1949, p. 204.

  

  First off, my copy for 1945 world almanac as 15.68 million (p. 494)
  which I take to be the 15.7 Graf uses (there will be a comment on
  Graf's method of rounding in just a second, by the way) but that's
  because there are multiple places in the Almanac which have
  population statistics. So here we see Graf doing something else that
  deniers do: cherry-picking his numbers to make his argument _seem_
  stronger.

  Don't get me wrong, he may well quoting a real number, but that
  doesn't given the whole story, something an honest person would make
  sure to give. In fact, it does quite the opposite, it gives us a
  clue as to his argumentative method.

  He says that the number is 15.19 million in 1945 _and 15.7 for the
  following 4 years_. [emphais mine] The last clause is true, from
  1946 to 1949 the number 15.7 is given. But the statement is also
  true for 1945 as well, as I've just pointed out. By leaving it out
  Graf is giving you the impression that the World Jewish population
  actually *increased* between 1945 and 1946 only to drop
  precipitously in 1949! That's dishonest.

  I presume the 1947 that appears in the text is wrong, that he really
  means 1949 that's given in the footnote. I can verify that an
  estimate from the AJC of 11.266 given in 1949 on page 204. But so is
  the estimate of 15.7, on page 289

  A little comment on how Graf rounds things: he clearly knows the
  rule. He rounded the 15.688 million estimate of 1946 *up* to 15.7,
  so he should have rounded 11.266 estimate of 1949 up to
  11.3. Instead, he rounded *down* to 11.2. But that's what he want's,
  isn't it? To make the drop seem as precipitous as possible.


  The point here is that merely quoting a statistic from an almanac
  while withholding pertinent information about the sources and
  accuracy of these estimates, as well as information about the
  existence of multiple estimates and, furthermore, cherry-picking the
  estimates for certain years and using inconsistent rounding shows
  that Graf is arguing in furtherance of a rhetorical agenda and not
  for the truth of the matter.

  In short, it demonstrates that Graf lies.

  Here are the estimates I have from 1939 till 1949. Those between
  1939 and 1949 in the 15 million range clearly indicate in their
  attribution that the numbers are from *pre-war census*. Here's the
  table

  Year     Estimate  Page     Estimate Date   Attribution      

  1938     16.24     258         1936           JSI
  1938     15.315    258         1933           AJC

  1939     15.315    288         1933           AJC

  1940     16.24     518         1936           JSI
  1940     15.29     519         1938           AJC

  1941     15.75     510         1939           AJC

  1942     15.68     594         1939           AJC

   from 1942 through 1948 the same table appears, clearly indicating
  that the figures are from 1939. 

  1949     11.266     204        1947/48       AJC
  1949     15.71      289          unknown     unknown


  I suspect that in all years between 42 and 48, inclusive, the 15.71
  figure also appears.

  A rational human being would realize that it's rather hard to take a
  census during a war, particularly a war as all-encompassing and
  destructive as WWII so the fact that the numbers didn't change
  between 1939 and 1946 is hardly surprising. He would also realize
  that those number are, therefore, virtually useless that in 1944
  there very probably weren't 15.7 million Jews alive.

  Moreover, a rational human being would see that Graf withholding the
  fact that these data from the war years is virtually meaningless
  because it's all based on pre-war data is a sign that he's lying in
  his argument. And his cherry-picking his numbers, as in the case of
  the number he gives for 1945, is just more proof. And he's rounding
  them in a way consistent only with the hypothesis that he wants the
  drop in Jewish population to seem as precipitous as possible, all of
  which demonstrates that this part of this 'article' by Graf is
  merely polemic.

  And Cramer, buying it hook-line-and-sinker just shows what a
  credulous buffon he is.

  And you rising to his defense, ..., well, you get the picture.


  _Strike Three_


  Now, this isn't the first time that Cramer has alighted on this
  topic. In fact, he seems to have a fascination with the population
  statistics, here's another of his 'well documented' posts that
  touches on the subject.

  http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/397160d22da8d21c?

  Which, again, is merely a plagiarized repost of 

  http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/holocaust.htm

  Even you should be able to recognize a neo-nazi website when you see one.


  This one has many examples of the same sort of denier methodology:
  misquote, missatribution and outright fabrication. For example,
  let's look at the following paragraph

  

    Immediately after World War II, Allied authorities declared that
    "Jews had been gassed" in all German concentration
    camps. ... Simon Wiesenthal, of the "Holocaust Center" in Los
    Angeles, stated in Books and Bookmen, April 1975, page 5, "No
    gassing took place in any camp on German soil."

    . . .
  

  Let's run down the list of what's wrong with this passage

  1. No. Allied authorities did not declare that '"Jews had been
    gassed" *in all German concentration camps*' Perhaps someone said
    something like that at some time very near the end of the war in a
    heated moment. But to inflate that into something like an
    *official pronouncement* by 'Allied authorities' is the worst sort
    of exaggeration.

    I can see why Fields does it, though. It does set up his 
    rhetorical manuever, namely.

  2. No, Simon Wiesenthal did not say "no gassings too place on any
    camp in German soil." The fact that those words are in quotes and
    an attribution given (Books and Bookmen, page 5, Apr 1975) means
    that this passage is meant as a quote. That's how one signifies
    quoting in the written word. Cramer may not understand this, but
    Fields assuredly does. 

    But if you go to that page of that edition of Books and Bookmen,
    what you find Weisenthal *actually* said is

       'Because there were no _extermination camps_ on German soil the
       Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not
       happen...'

    I'm hoping that you're intelligent enough to see the difference
    between "no gassings on any camp on German soi" and "no
    extermination camps on German soil" because Cramer couldn't. It's
    one of the reasons I call him an idiot.

    I'm also hoping that you're smart enough to see that to claim,as
    StormFront continues to do, that Weisenthal ever wrote the words
    they attribute to him, is a demonstration of their fundamental
    dishonesty.  And it's not just Storm Front. Every holocaust denier
    website out there has some variation on this supposed quote.


   Let's continue.

  

    The Jewish-owned New York Times reported in 1945 that
    Soviet Russia supplied the figure of four million Jews having been
    put to death, "in the gas chambers of Auschwitz." However, in July
    of 1990, the Polish government reduced this figure to 1.1 million
    and it was accepted by Jewish groups. Despite this evidence, the
    "official figure" of six million dead was not lowered to three
    million!

  


   3. Yes the Soviet's did give a figure of 4 million. What deniers
       never tell you is

     3.1 That it was based on the cremation capacity the Nazis
         calculated. And the Soviets, along with some assumptions
         about the usage of the crematoria, concluded that 4 million
         had been killed there. Not a very reliable method

          
     3.2. The calculation wasn't just for 'Jews', but all victims,
          just as that infamous plaque deniers always grouse about
          doesn't use the word "jew" at all.

  Don't believe me? Will you believe Carlos Porter? He's more your
  type, isn't he?

  

    DOCUMENT 008-USSR

    Report by the Soviet War Crimes Commission, 6 May 1945. There were
    usually 200,000 inmates at one time in the extermination camp of
    Auschwitz. _Over 4 million people_ from the countries occupied by
    Germany were killed in Auschwitz, in most cases by gas immediately
    after their arrival; the remainder were first used for labour or
    for medical experiments and later killed in various ways
    (injections, ill treatment etc.). Details relating to the camp and
    the persons responsible for the crimes.

     ... 
       
    1) the Germans exterminated over _four million citizens_ of the
       Soviet Union, Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Czechoslovakia,
       Roumania, Hungary, and other countries by shooting and
       monstrous tortures in Auschwitz camp;

     ...

    Over _4,000,000 murdered_ 

     ...

    In the five crematoria alone, with their 52 retorts, the Germans
    were able to exterminate the following numbers of prisoners since
    their installation:

    In crematorium no. 1, which existed for 24 months, 9,000 bodies
    could be burnt monthly, which means a total of 216,000 during the
    entire period of its existence;

    The corresponding figures are: 

    - crematorium no. 9: 19 months, 90,000 bodies per month, total
    figure 1,710,000 bodies;

    - crematorium no. 3, 18 months, 90,000 bodies per month, total
    figure 1,620,000 bodies;

    - crematorium no. 4: 17 months, 45,000 bodies per months, total
    figure 765,000 bodies;

    - crematorium no. 5: 18 months, 45,000 bodies per month .

    The total capacity of all five crematoria was 279,000 bodies per
    month, for a total figure of 5,121,000 for the entire period of
    its existence.

    Since the Germans also burnt a great number of bodies on pyres,
    the capacity of the installations for the extermination of human
    beings in Auschwitz must be considered to be much higher in fact
    than this figure would suggest. But even when one considers that
    individual crematoria may not have worked to full capacity, or
    they might have been shut down for repairs part of the time, the
    technical commission established that the German hangmen killed
    not less than _4,000,000 citizens_ of the USSR, Poland, France,
    Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Holland,
    Belgium, and other countries during the period of the existence of
    Auschwitz camp.

   [emphasis mine]

   Not one instance of the word 'Jew', and a clear indication that
   the '4 million' comes from the Soviets and their estimate was based
   on cremation capacity.

   So Field's claim that the notion that 'four million Jews put to
   death' is a lie outright, The Soviets didn't say 'jews'

   
   The sentence beginning 'However, in July of 1990...' is grossly
   misleading because no historian ever accepted that 4 million
   people, much less Jews, had been gassed at Auschwtiz. The first
   estimate for a death toll at Auschwitz/Birkenau was given in 1953
   by Reitlinger of between 800,00 and 900,000, so the implication
   that historians believed in the 4 million until nearly 1990 is
   laughible. I'm hoping that you should be smart enough to realize
   that the total of 6 million didn't depend on the 4 million in the
   first place and, therefore, this supposed 'reduction' that should
   have occured in 1990 to overall Holocaust death toll, as implied
   by the last sentence in the Fields  quote above, is completely
   specious, and, in fact, an outright lie.

  

    The World Almanac for 1947, in quoting figures supplies by the
    American Jewish Committee states that the world Jewish population
    in 1939 was 15,688,259. The New York Times of February 22, 1948,
    stated that the world Jewish population ranged from 15,600,000 to
    18,700,000

  

   And we're back to the World Almanac again, but this time the
   'story' has a twist. Can you see it?

   Probably not, so I'll make it explicit. 

   Fields uses the exact same rhetorical move as Graf, (so much so,
   that it's hard to figure out who plagiarized whom), namely: first
   the world almanac, then the N.Y. Times (pointedly identified as
   "Jewish") article of 22 Feb, 1948, which is just Baldwin article again.

   But here Field's gives exact numbers when we already know that
   Baldwin used generalities, i.e. 'fifteen to eighteen million Jews
   ... [in] the world'

   So, how could Fields have more exact information than the author of
   the article he's quoting? Easy, he just makes it up, and then he
   'ups' the exactitude of the source he's quoting hoping that he will
   seem more authoritative. Or, rather, he takes some numbers, in the
   article, adds them together and then writes his sentences as if
   Baldwin had said it.

   This is another example of dishonest reporting on the part of a
   denier and it compounds the dishonesty of not telling your audience
   that the author you're quoting as an authority doesn't hold the
   opinion you're attributing to him.

   That's a twofer! Gee, debunking deniers is fun!


> but I see people calling others liars as much as your side
> does on account of positions your side does not agree with, the normal
> reaction is that the people who are so quick to call others liars are
> in fact the biggest liars.

  On the contrary. Calling people liars when one can actually
  demonstrate that they lie about the evidence, as I have just done,
  has the salutary effect of demonstrating those poor turkeys who rise
  to the defense of those liars with such lame arguments as you've
  just made to be gullible fools they are, fools who believe things
  not because they've investigated them on their own, not because
  they've thought about them, not because they actually know the
  subject, but because they *like* someone and think what they post is
  cool and 'well documentated' even though it clearly isn't.

  bye-bye now, turkey.


whd

-- 
National Runt, demonstrating his idea of informed debate

  Hello!  I can barely make out the relevant portions of what you are
  saying!  Can you hear me?  Hello!  Are you in need of assistance?

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor